Tolerance.

[peter]

I think V is right that the subjects of tolerance and pc'ness are inextricably linked. It's like in a weird way one is the flip side of the other ......... but not quite. Thinking about tolerance and intolerance, it seems to me that we use the words way too loosely. How can I explain this?

It's like......... the concepts are too loose to be useful? There is an inherent connection between the terms that simply renders them inappropriate in almost all circumstances. You're not intolerant of evil; you simply squash that fucker flat at the outset. You are not tolerant of people of other religions than yours; you simply accord them exactly the same freedom to practice their faith as you expect to receive yourself.

The more I narrow it down, the less space I find for the application of the terms to almost any circumstance.

But another problem is, and the lucidity and clear headedness with which the answers here are put demonstrates this - there is no single correct position on this that cannot be undermined by an equally strong (what's that word they use in logics...) antithesis (?). The thing is not so much to get to the correct place in the debate as to understand the territory you are considering.

[Fist and Faith]

It doesn't matter how often it is successfull, or whether it is ever successful. Attempting to prevent someone from expressing a view you do not like is an act of intolerance. The person trying to do that is intolerant. It doesn't mean everyone who shares most of the intolerant person's views is intolerant. Especially, obviously, if they do not share the view that nobody should be allowed to express a view they don't like.

It wasn't the right that shot Steve Scalise, the FRC, or that vandalized Tucker Carlson's home, or drove conservatives out of restaurants, or has silenced, stalked, and battered conservative speakers on campus, or has repeatedly assaulted people for the crime of wearing MAGA hats.

And before someone plays the "whatabout" game with the idjit who ran his car through the protesters at the "Unite the Right" rally, let's keep in mind that no one - no one - defended that guy. Meanwhile, the Democrat leadership has provided cover for, excused, or incited the above behavior.

And it's all couched in the guise of "fighting intolerance", which is obviously BS to anyone capable of critical thinking. The far left has become the New Puritans, demanding strict ideological purity, and Inquisition-level punishment for heretics.

If you believe that any of the abhorrent, scorched-Earth behavior and protests over the course of the last two years are justified, you have no business talking about tolerance.

Anyone attempting to prevent anyone from exercising their Constitutional rights should be arrested and face the legal consequences of their actions. And, of course, same goes for anyone assaulting anyone. (And let's please nobody get into "What about self-defense?" Let's not get mired down in silly arguments if you know what I mean.)

[Vraith]

Anyone attempting to prevent anyone from exercising their Constitutional rights should be arrested and face the legal consequences of their actions.

(And let's please nobody get into "What about self-defense?" Let's not get mired down in silly arguments if you know what I mean.)

Heh...how bout getting mired down in the OTHER one that someone almost always pipes up with at this point---

The First Amendment only prevents gov't branches/authorities/people from stopping your speech...there are plenty of times civilians are allowed to do so without violating your rights...so there are no legal consequences [[technically, however oppressed/silenced one might feel, no right has been violated.]]

[[[seen the above stated in quite a few places before---I think even a couple times here on the Watch....]]]

[Fist and Faith]

There's no way to legislate perfection. Or write perfect legislation. Or whatever. Free speech is a good thing. Nobody is legally allowed to prevent anyone, even Nazis, from speaking this trash. Screaming louder than the Nazis is not preventing then from exercising their right to express their trash. Of course, it's preventing their trash from being heard. Does that violate the Nazi's First? Does not allowing someone to scream louder than the Nazis violate the screamer's First? Many many scenarios.

And I'm tolerant of both of them doing what they're doing.

[Cail]

It doesn't matter how often it is successfull, or whether it is ever successful. Attempting to prevent someone from expressing a view you do not like is an act of intolerance. The person trying to do that is intolerant. It doesn't mean everyone who shares most of the intolerant person's views is intolerant. Especially, obviously, if they do not share the view that nobody should be allowed to express a view they don't like.

It wasn't the right that shot Steve Scalise, the FRC, or that vandalized Tucker Carlson's home, or drove conservatives out of restaurants, or has silenced, stalked, and battered conservative speakers on campus, or has repeatedly assaulted people for the crime of wearing MAGA hats.

And before someone plays the "whatabout" game with the idjit who ran his car through the protesters at the "Unite the Right" rally, let's keep in mind that no one - no one - defended that guy. Meanwhile, the Democrat leadership has provided cover for, excused, or incited the above behavior.

And it's all couched in the guise of "fighting intolerance", which is obviously BS to anyone capable of critical thinking. The far left has become the New Puritans, demanding strict ideological purity, and Inquisition-level punishment for heretics.

If you believe that any of the abhorrent, scorched-Earth behavior and protests over the course of the last two years are justified, you have no business talking about tolerance.

Anyone attempting to prevent anyone from exercising their Constitutional rights should be arrested and face the legal consequences of their actions. And, of course, same goes for anyone assaulting anyone. (And let's please nobody get into "What about self-defense?" Let's not get mired down in silly arguments if you know what I mean.)

Agreed.

Again, partisans who adhere to a purity test regarding speech or activities they don't agree with will excuse all sorts of bad behavior. And those tools will point out that the 1st Amendment only prohibits the government from censoring speech. Those Brown Shirts will assert that they have the right (and possibly the responsibility) to tamp down speech that runs counter to their beliefs. They're facists. They're puritans. They think they know better than everyone, and they're not afraid to use force and violence to achieve their ideological purity.

Be afraid of anyone who defends silencing speech. Because you're next.

[Skyweir]

Tolerance is neither a denial of "freedoms", nor a guarantee of "freedoms".

Tolerance beseaches a state of mind .. it does not demand it, it is not legislated. However, the most severe intolerances are legislated against and are socially rejected, depending on the society of course. All free thinking, democracies committed to principles of equality or more accurately equity .. seek to discourage harmful intolerances.

[Cail]

Tolerance has nothing to do with freedom(s), and I don't think that anyone is saying it does. What I'm saying (and I think Fist is saying too) is that there is a growing movement that uses intolerance to pay lip service to tolerance, and that group is terrifying.

[SoulBiter]

100% agree with Cail and Fist. There is a growing movement in developed countries to limit free speech by violence and intimidation. Sadly this is what is being taught to the young that are being indoctrinated in college today. Colleges used to be the one place where people could exercise free speech and the free flowing thoughts and ideas. Instead now it only allows what fits their narrative of what they want young people exposed to.

[wayfriend]

Sad to see so many people pushing hate.

Myth: Not tolerating hate speech on your campus is being against "the free flow of ideas". Reality: you should be free to protest hate-mongers, and you should be free to choose whom you associate with, or not (it's an amendment, too). No one protests any speaker unless their ideas have already been heard! This is a pervasive ruse that would have us be compelled to listen to hate speech. Counter: when town hall debates about health care reform were protested and shouted down, no one pointed out that the free flow of ideas was being impinged.

Myth: Not providing a free platform to hate speech is "censorship". Reality: no one is compelled to provide the means for hate speech to be spread. There are plenty of ways to do so, no one is "silenced" in the slightest little bit. If you heard they were kicked out of somewhere, they weren't silenced! This is a pervasive ruse that is really about increasing the reach of hate. Counter: When the Dixie Chicks could not get a gig because they protested the Iraq war, no one pointed out they were being censored.

Myth: Anyone is being "terrorized" for not being PC. "Get out of my school" is not terrorism. And it doesn't affect anyone anywhere else. This is a pervasive ruse used to make this seem like a problem when it isn't. People being shot in church for being black because some nut bought into some other nut's hate speech is an actual problem.

[wayfriend]

Sad to see so many people pushing hate.

Myth: Not tolerating hate speech on your campus is being against "the free flow of ideas". Reality: you should be free to protest hate-mongers, and you should be free to choose whom you associate with, or not (it's an amendment, too). No one protests any speaker unless their ideas have already been heard! This is a pervasive ruse that would have us be compelled to listen to hate speech. Counter: when town hall debates about health care reform were protested and shouted down, no one pointed out that the free flow of ideas was being impinged.

Myth: Not providing a free platform to hate speech is "censorship". Reality: no one is compelled to provide the means for hate speech to be spread. There are plenty of ways to do so, no one is "silenced" in the slightest little bit. If you heard they were kicked out of somewhere, they weren't silenced! This is a pervasive ruse that is really about increasing the reach of hate. Counter: When the Dixie Chicks could not get a gig because they protested the Iraq war, no one pointed out they were being censored.

Myth: Anyone is being "terrorized" for not being PC. "Get out of my school" is not terrorism. And it doesn't affect anyone anywhere else. This is a pervasive ruse used to make this seem like a problem when it isn't. People being shot in church for being black because some nut bought into some other nut's hate speech is an actual problem.

[Cail]

Myth: Not tolerating hate speech on your campus is being against "the free flow of ideas". Reality: you should be free to protest hate-mongers, and you should be free to choose whom you associate with, or not (it's an amendment, too). No one protests any speaker unless their ideas have already been heard! This is a pervasive ruse that would have us be compelled to listen to hate speech. Counter: when town hall debates about health care reform were protested and shouted down, no one pointed out that the free flow of ideas was being impinged.

This is false. No one forced anyone to go hear a campus speaker. Speakers get booked, and then people who are interested in that speaker can then get tickets to go see that speaker. The intolerant left has prevented people they disagree with from speaking. Call it whatever you want, but it's intolerant. Even if the speaker is someone you disagree with, it's downright evil to shut them down, and in a few cases, assault the speaker. I won't address the whataboutism, other than to say that yes, it was wrong then too.

Myth: Not providing a free platform to hate speech is "censorship". Reality: no one is compelled to provide the means for hate speech to be spread. There are plenty of ways to do so, no one is "silenced" in the slightest little bit. If you heard they were kicked out of somewhere, they weren't silenced! This is a pervasive ruse that is really about increasing the reach of hate. Counter: When the Dixie Chicks could not get a gig because they protested the Iraq war, no one pointed out they were being censored.

No one's suggested that. You're defining "hate speech" as something you disagree with. That's fine, you're free to ignore it. Whataboutism aside, you're missing the point that conservative speakers have been booked by several schools, then un-booked because people throw tantrums.

You're also well aware that "censorship" comes in many forms. The 1st Amendment only prevents the government from doing it. It's perfectly legal to deny access to speech in the private sector, but again, that's not what we're talking about.

Myth: Anyone is being "terrorized" for not being PC. "Get out of my school" is not terrorism. And it doesn't affect anyone anywhere else. This is a pervasive ruse used to make this seem like a problem when it isn't. People being shot in church for being black because some nut bought into some other nut's hate speech is an actual problem.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Sad to see so many people pushing hate.

Agreed, however it's people who align far more closely to your beliefs who are the violent ones.

[SoulBiter]

Sad to see so many people claiming someone else is pushing hate while simultaneously using violence and intimidation to silence those they disagree with. Free speech is also speech you disagree with.

[Cail]

And more to the point, no one - no one - rushed to Dylan Roof's defense after he shot up that church. But when James Hodgkinson tried to assassinate Steve Scalise, there were an awful lot of people on the left and in the media that tried to excuse his actions due to the climate that Trump had created, or some other such nonsense.

But this is what totalitarian movements do. They marginalize their opposition. Any dissent is labeled as "hate speech". Dissenters are dehumanized as, "Deplorables", or "Bitter Clingers". And when that takes hold, then there's no moral issue with harming them. They're not like us. They believe in the wrong things. They vote against their own self-interest. It's just those dummies in flyover country.

And they'll tell you all these things, and go on and on about how tolerant they are of this and that, and they'll do it with a straight face, because that's exactly what they've been trained to do. It's Orwellian doublespeak to talk about tolerance and excuse the extremely uncivil behavior of the left.

The people of this country are being manipulated. I pray we wake up and see this for what it is. And I pray that there's no more bloodshed over it, though I think that's a pipe dream.

[Zarathustra]

Sad to see so many people pushing hate.

Myth: Not tolerating hate speech on your campus is being against "the free flow of ideas". Reality: you should be free to protest hate-mongers, and you should be free to choose whom you associate with, or not (it's an amendment, too).

I'll go even further: you should be free to protest anyone in the political arena. There's no extra rights for those who protest "hate-mongers." The only reason I can think of to demonize the offending speech with such characterization is to give the appearance of moral high ground to the protesters--which is odd, in a discussion of rights. Their right to speak comes from the same right that the alleged "hate monger" has, and no alleged claim to moral high ground makes one's right more powerful than the next.

But regardless, that high ground would be surrendered the moment they start threatening riots, violence, or intimidation such that speakers no longer feel safe to speak. This is not protest, it is anarchy.

No one protests any speaker unless their ideas have already been heard! This is a pervasive ruse that would have us be compelled to listen to hate speech.

It's odd that you equate "letting people speak" to "being compelled to listen." I can't help but wonder (again) if this switcheroo is made possible in your mind by the unnecessary addition of "hate speech" to your sentence. Does adding that phrase suspend not only the logic of universal rights, but also the linguistic logic of the meaning of words?

Counter: when town hall debates about health care reform were protested and shouted down, no one pointed out that the free flow of ideas was being impinged.

Well, you did. You called it, 'un-democratic.' Have you changed your mind? Or do you think it's okay for protesters to stop speech depending on the content? Is some speech inherently "better" than others and therefore has more of a right to be spoken?

Principles should hold no matter who they are applied to; otherwise, you're talking about preferences, not principles. The characterization of some speech as "hate speech" is too subjective to be useful as a guiding principle. It's too easy to label things that piss you off as "hate speech." Remember the Obama rodeo clown? Some Dems wanted that investigated as a hate crime! Just some dude in an Obama mask!!!

When people get used to thinking they have have moral high ground just because they get offended, then being offended can become the justification for all sorts of horrors.

[Skyweir]

Wow speaking of switcheroos

There seems absolutely some unfathomable switcheroos in this thread.

When did tolerance become a negative undesirable? When did intolerance become an ensign standard of appropriateness?

We are all agreed that hate speech is undesirable .. as is violence and the incitement to violence.

Someone said no one is suggesting tolerance has anything to do with freedoms .. and Lo and behold the next few posts absolutely implies tolerance limits peoples freedom of speech. How? Because there is a clear, not even well nuanced line drawn between those aspiring for tolerant attitudes, policies etc AND those instigating hate and violence.

Lets get our stories straight lads.

First hate and violent tendencies are not the domain of a political affiliation.. though there is indeed some evidence to suggest that this is changing.

Political parties and their respective groupies are not excused in breaking the law .. inciting violence is a crime as is hate speech.

So lets leave partisan politics to one side.

There are nutters of both and all persuasions ... and the perpetration of crimes is NOT tolerated in almost every civilised society.

This shouldnt be an excuse to air ones dirty laundry or an opportunity to take partisan pot shots ...

Tolerance, I agree does permeate the politically correct agenda .. for very obvious reasons. Its about promoting equitable and non discriminatory public attitudes.

In private people are as non PC as they want to be. There are no brown shirts marching the streets demanding citizens behave a certain way or think a certain way.

Youd be arrested in Nazi Germany for speaking in opposition to the government .. thats not really a risk in our societies ... well not yet.

And fascism is quite commonly the domain of the far right .. so implying the far left are fascist is spurious at best.

[Fist and Faith]

Have we really defined things? Free speech is a good thing. I tolerate it, and will defend it. It is necessary in a free society. Even when I despise what someone is saying.

But that's as a society. I will not tolerate pro-Nazi speech in my home. I'll discuss Nazism. I'll debate it. But I will not allow someone to talk about its goodness in my home. I will have them removed by the police, if it comes to that.

But they can get a permit and have a rally in a public park, just like anyone else can. (And I'll attend and speak out against them.) But if, as a society, we begin forbidding one person's free speech, we'll forbid another's. And another's. And another's. And THAT is what the Nazis (And Henry VIII, since I'm currently watching The Tudors) are all about. I'll fight against that.

I don't know, or much care, who wants to call which parts of that tolerance or intolerance.

[Cail]

The difference here is "speaking out against" versus "silencing speech I disagree with via violence".

[wayfriend]

Sad to see so many people claiming someone else is pushing hate while simultaneously using violence and intimidation to silence those they disagree with. Free speech is also speech you disagree with.

You think my post was violence and intimidation?!?!

I would say "That's the problem", except I know you don't actually think that. But you say it. So "That's the lie" is a better expression.

When people argue first amendment ONLY for white supremacists, it's not the first amendment that they are supporting. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT.

[Cail]

When people argue first amendment ONLY for white supremacists, it's not the first amendment that they are supporting. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT.

Good thing no one's doing that. The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, just as it applies to (nearly) all forms of speech. In fact, what you're referring to as "hate speech" has been repeatedly protected by SCOTUS. There are no "hate speech" laws in the US, as the government is specifically forbidden from passing those sorts of laws ("Congress shall make no law...").

So straw men and whataboutisms aside, everyone enjoys the right to free speech, regardless of the content of that speech.

Now, if you don't like a certain type of speech, that's all well and good. You don't have to listen to it. You can speak out against it. But when you try to silence it with violence - or even by shouting it down - then you can't try to take the high ground with tolerance, because you're anything but. Silencing speech is what fascists (and communists) do. Refusing to serve people because of the shirt they're wearing is fascist. Persecuting people because of their beliefs (no matter how wrong you might think they are) is fascist.


Here is yet another example of someone being punished for wrongthink.

[Zarathustra]

When did tolerance become a negative undesirable? When did intolerance become to ensign standard of appropriateness?

I don't think anyone has said that tolerance is absolutely undesirable. Context matters. If you're tolerating everyone's rights, then it's great! If you are using "tolerance" to mean that we must approve of things that we don't approve, then it's a euphemism for something not so desirable.

I don't think anyone is making a virtue of intolerance. You have to recognize that there are code words for each side, words that are used for propaganda purposes. "Diversity" and "tolerance" are examples of such words for the Left (the Right has some too). They sound good, but don't really mean what they appear to mean on the surface. For instance, "diversity" is just code for different skin colors, not a diversity of ideas. The Left is all about appearances. They think it's great that people look different, but not so great that we think differently.

We are all agreed that hate speech is undesirable .. as is violence and the incitement to violence.

We are NOT all in agreement that hate speech is undesirable, because we can't even agree on what hate speech is. This is another code word of the Left to demonize mainstream beliefs of conservatives, such as we should protect our borders and control immigration, or that Islam is a backward, violent religion, or black people should do more help themselves and stop playing the victim card, or it's okay for rodeo clowns to wear silly Obama masks.

This is what progressivism and "tolerance" is doing to our colleges:

Nimesh Patel was recently yanked off stage during a performance at Columbia University after telling a joke about a gay black man from Patel's neighborhood. In the joke, Patel claimed that homosexuality for blacks couldn't possibly be a choice, as "no one looks in the mirror and thinks, 'this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.'"

The joke bombed in front of the uptight crowd of woke Ivy Leaguers, despite the fact that technically it points out the oppression minorities face. Go figure. But his gig was cut short after the joke. One student later accused the Patel of "blatant anti-blackness." Huh?

The comedy writer for "Saturday Night Live" is now speaking out about the controversy. Writing in the New York Times, he points out "this particular joke has worked at New York clubs full of gay people, black people and college students multiple times. I didn't think twice about using it in a room full of smart, progressive young adults."

But comedians should think twice about performing for oversensitive college students. For years now The College Fix has chronicled the mass exodus of comedians who refuse to play campuses anymore. Everyone from Chris Rock to Jerry Seinfeld have sworn off the university venue.

This guy is a liberal minority writer for SNL--you know, that show that bashes Trump every week--and HE is too intolerant for these progressive kids?? They didn't even get the joke! The joke was making fun of the idea that homosexuality is a choice (a conservative idea) by highlighting--not mocking--that black people have it so rough, why would they CHOOSE to add another form of adversity to their plight?

Progressive "tolerance" is making our kids so dumb they can't even recognize when a comedian is on their side. They have some Pavlovian response to people laughing anywhere near the words "black" or "gay" and they automatically shut down this speech, even though it's A) pretty funny and B) the opposite of intolerance!

When are we going to see that the Left has taken this too far?